agreement over iranian's nuclear program. ierated to president rouhani what i said in new york-- while there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward and success is by no means guaranteed, i believe we can reach a comprehensive solution. >> rose: it marked the first time leaders from the united states and iran had directly communicated since 1979, the time of the revolution. joining me now from washington is mark landler, white house correspondent for the "new york times." thank you, mark, for joining us. >> hi, charlie. >> rose: how did this happen? >> well, charlie, as you know, for the whole week, there's been this interesting diplomatic dance unfolding between the iranians and the americans at the united nations. the white house said early in the week, it was open to a handshake or some sort of an informal meeting. they put feelers out to the irians. there was a lot of discussion of logistices, and ultimately president rouhani skipped the opportunity and said to several other people, including you, that he needed more time to set

it up. there needed to be more groundwork done. well, it turns out that another day later, as he's on his way out of new york, the iranians sent word to the white house that president rouhani would welcome a telephone call. and so today at about 2:30 in the afternoon, president obama, the white house, they placed this call. he is in his car on his way to j.f.k. for his flight home to tehran. and he answers, and the two men speak for 15 minutes. they speak largely about the iranian nuclear program. but a few other issues. and at the end, pru rouhani signs off with an english version of "have a nice day." and president obama says good-bye in farsi. and we have history made. so it's sort of an extraordinary end to a week where there was just a great deal of anticipation at that this might be the moment for the first high-level contact in more than 30 years. >> rose: so what do you read into it based on what the

president said in the briefing room? >> well, president obama said that he saw the basis for an agreement on the nuclear program. now, obviously, in a 15-minute call, you're not going to cover any of the details. and it's worth noting that president rouhani didn't come to new york with any details. he didn't put an offer on the table. in fact, in his speech to the general assembly, he reiterated iran's position ons right to enrich uranium. he didn't actually move the government's position at all. but merely the a atmospherics of this coming on the heels of an exchange of letters between the two leaders, a series of moderate statements by president on your program and others just suggests that this president has been elected with a very different mandate than his predecessor, and that mandate is to try to arrive at a deal with will lift these very difficult economic sanction sanctions aree really squeezing the iranian economy. >> rose: as you suggested to me, one advantage of a phone call is you do not have the

optics that can be seen in tehran if, in fact, the president of iran of worried about the kind of consequences there might be supera picture of the two together. >> well, indeed. if you notice, anotherring wrinkle about what happened this afternoon, is the president of iran actually tweeted the fact of the phone call before president obama announced it in the white house. and so several people have commented that, you know, president rouhani scooped president obama on this big piece of news. what's interesting about that, though, is it shows that hassan rouhani is a man who thinks carefully about how news is publicized and he wants to get his message out there, get his spin on it. so i think if you look at the whole week from the-- i think on his part desire to avoid the handshake but then willingness to do the phone call which was initiated by the americans, it's designed to send a message to conservatives at home that this is a president who is reaching out to the united states but he's not going to do it too

eagerly. he's not going to be perceived at home as the supplicant in this relationship. >> rose: and white house is is saying this may be and he will we cannot afford not to pursue it and see where it leads. >> that is right. they have concluded that this guy is for real, and by that, what they think is that the supreme leader, ayatollah hamepi, has empowered him to negotiate on the nuclear program and perhaps make concessions, which his predecessor, october madin jad, wasn't able to make. it's a tricky balance the president is going to walk here. the perception is he will have a few months to make his case and deliver some results, but that if he doesn't or makes concessions that are too big, too early, there could be a backlash from the conservative elements back in iran. so the next few months are going to be a very tricky dance. i think more for president rouhani, honestly, than

president obama. >> rose: i agree. here is what president obama said, though, which is very interesting, beyond nuclear he says, resolving this issue--" the nuclear issue "okay could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the united states and the islamic republic iran. it would help facilitate a better relationship between iran and the international community, as well as ones in the region, one that would help the iranian people fulfill their extraordinary potential and help us address other concerns that could bring greater pce peaceand stability in the middle east." suggesting the president understands if they can get something done on nuclear, that they may very well develop a working relationship that could affect syria, the israeli-palestinnian conversation, and a lot of other things that iran, because of where it is and what it is, could play a role. >> well, that's right, charlie, and i think the context here is really important. this is all unfolded in the wake

of the chemical weapons agreement that was arrived at also in the last 24 hours at the united nations. there's generally a belief that in order for there to be a successful process of tur turnig over the assad regime's chemical weapons you're going to need the participation pthe constructive participation of the iranians. they're the major patron of bashar al-assad, in addition to the russians, they'r. and most importantly, the iranians are eager to have a seat at that table. the french have been open this week in saying maybe they should have a seat at the table. the americans up till now have been a little more reruns batted inant. i think by saying what he said, president obama is signaling there could be a broader set of discussions that the u.s. and iranians could have that as you say will bring them out of the isolation that they've been in the over past several years. >> rose: there is also this-- the french foreign ministers on this program talking about that very point.

but also throughout the president's briefing were words like this, "i also communicated to president rouhani my deep respect for the iranian people." i mean, there is this sense of respect for your ident, which means a lot to the rawpses. >> well, remember, president obama came into office with this promise of extending a hand to the iranians. and, you know, he sent them greetings on their new year, and he referred to them as the islamic republic of iran, that was new at the time, in 2009 when she he used that language, and he's continued that practice, even during the period of time when there was relatively chilly relations in terms of the nuclear talks, the president has kept issuing these annual greetings to the iranian people in which he always spks about the depth and long history of persian culture. so, yes, that's very much a theme that's been a constant, and i think you saw it pay some dividends for the president today. >> rose: and then there's

this-- there was today conversations between the g-5 plus 1, which includes secretary of state john kerry, and the new iranian foreign minister, zarif. and, therefore, these conversations are taking place. the interesting question for me is beyond secretary kerry, what might the president do or say in addition to this phone conversation to move it along? >> well, that's a good question. i mean the practice president obama has followed is to play a role in initiating these things, and then let secretary kerry do a lot of the heavy lifting. if you look at the israeli-palestinnian peace talks once again launched, secretary kerry is the guy doing the work on that. i wouldn't be surprised if we see secretary kerry and even diplomats at the lel right below him now engage in the hard work of figuring out what is the initial position of both sides

going to be, what is the scope for closing the gaps. i mean, american officials will tell that you even now, are there are enormous gaps between the two sides, and there's a sense in the white hose that the iranians have not come to grips with how much they're going to have to concede in order to get these sanctions lifted. i think a lot of that work will now unfold over next few months at the political director level, at secretary kerry's level. but the mere fact that you've had a one call and by all accounts a very positive meeting between kerry and zarif, indicates that all of this has a momentum that we really investigate seen, certainly as long as president obama has been in office, and, frankly, going back much further than that. >> rose: one thing that could help the momentum would be a small display of transparency. and, in fact, there's going to be a moment for that coming up. the international atomic energy agency is sending inspectors out to iran in about two or three weeks, and this is something

that happens quite regularly, but they'll make a list of demands, as they always do, of facilities they'd like to inspect. how the iranians respond to that demand will be one early indication of whether we're in a new era of transparency and disclosure. >> rose: mark, thank you for joining us. it is an extraordinary story, and you have covered it well. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us >> rose: laurent fabius is here. he is the french foreign pin officer he also served as prime minister of manse from 1984-1986 when he was a very young man. there have been important developments this week at the united nations general assembly. on thursdayethe five permanent members of the security council agreed on a resolution to require bashar al-assad to surrender hishemical weapons. also on thursday, laurent fabius represented france at the nuclear negotiations with iran. i am pleased to have him here

back at this table. welcome. >> it's my pleasure. >> rose: i should also take note of the fact that you were president when there was a bilateral conversation between why you we pesident and the president of iran. >> that's true. that's true. >> rose: what's your assessment of him having seen him in action this week at the united nations? >> well, you said, it has been a busy week. iran, syria. as far as iran is concerned, the words are good. and they are new. and it's important. but what matters at the end of thday is actions, deedses, and, there were, all tests will be sure that the iranian people do implement what they are talking about. that's our perspective.

if there is an opportunity, we have to seize it because the situation is very serious. we are discussing about nuclear, okay. they have the right to have any nuclear-- what they want but as far as nuclear weapon is concerned, it must be simple-- it's no. in the meet we had-- when it was it, the day before yesterday-- with the minister of foreign affairs, zarif, what was interesting for not only what zarif said, but the fact that all of us, i five-- chinese, russians, americans, british, ourselveses -- we said to iranian representative as far as nuclear weapon is concerned, it's no. now, to come back to president rouhani, no doubt is

intelligent. no doubt he knows he has been elected only because the iranian population wants to change, because of the sanctions, sanctions, and the question is will he implement what he is saying, and what he says? and we have to pay attention to this new behavior, which is really new. but to be sure that we shall not be fooled. >> rose: okay, assuming that, clearly, deeds are more important than words, does he seem genuine to you? >> i don't if genuine is the most-- i don't know if it is the word that i would say about the iranians leaders, but i would say, mr. rose, probably it's not the main problem.

it's to be sure that they act as if they were genuine, and we have to control that. >> rose: how do you control >> for instance, yesterday mr. zarif said this is my proposal. the end of the game will be no nuclear weapons, a series of sentences. and he said, "well, it will take one year." okay. and afterwards i said to him, "mr. minister, we have heard what you said, but i have heard your president who said that it will last three months. one year, three months. we shall discuss, we shall negotiation. because negotiation is better than strike. but, meanwhile, what does happen? because meanwhile there are new centrifuges. there is the completion of

possible-- possible completion of the factory-- a new reactor which is very dangerous, and the belief of france is that we go quicker. we don't want to be trapped. and he says, okay, if it is possible to go quicker, it's all right. therefore, let's seize the opportunity because it's the week. of so. things were frozen on syria and iran. now there is a possibility. and we must implement it being very strict about the implementation. >> rose: i'll get to what might be a transactional nature of this and what iran would give up and what it would be reeiving in terms of softening up sanctions.

but, first, there are words, and words do matter, and he said, the president, we do not have-- we do not want nuclear weapons, and we will never want nuclear weapons. those were his words. >> yes, yes, yes. and words are important, you're right. it's not the first time. it's the first time for the new president. >> rose: yes. >> but the supreme court leader has already said that it was not their aim, and he added that from a religious point of view, it was -- >> rose: against the koran. >> yes, yes, yes, okay. well, that's important. and i'm not discounting people who said words do not matter. they matter. but as people responsible for government, we have to be sure that words are implemented, that it is-- these are not only words. and that's all. and, obviously, to control it very strictly and to stick to

the timetable. we have appointments-- next october. we shall have a meeting of experts in order to know exactly what are the proposals -- >> rose: next week? >> yes, in a couple of weeks. . it's important-- therefore, we shall check very quickly if it is genuine or not. >> rose: okay, how would it work? i mean, what-- who moves first? i mean, do you sit there and you say, if you will give us inspection of the iraq facility, and we can see the plutonium there, and you will show us how are you dismantling it, then we will order the reduction of sanctions to this degree. is that the way it works? >> yesterday, we did not enter the details, but it has to be

done, and as soon as the next meeting in october. this sort of thing. now, you have alluded to sanctions. are you right, because my understanding is that sanctions have been decisive. i would establish a comparison between iran and syria. in iran, sanctions have been decided. for syria, the menace of strike have been decided. it means that it's not new. if we don't have-- we have-- coming back to iran-- to bear in mind that that they are asking for the cancelling of sanctions. okay. we will be able to examine that when decisive gestures, which have been done by the iranians.

>> rose: whatbout fact of transparency, and the fact that the i.a.e.a. says it has not been allowed to do what's necessary for them to do. >> it's absolutely necessary. there has been interesting dialogue between president helen and president rouhani. at the time, president rouhani said-- oh, no, i am confusing. it was a did you log between me and my-- dialogue between me and my counter-part. one of the two dialogues. and the iranians say, you know, the difficulty is that we cannot prove the nonexistence of something. >> rose: they have this expression in english called, "we can't prove a negative." >> okay, and they say that. and they elaborated that.

... and it was both political and philosophical. and i think president elansailed i will not deal with this philosophical matter. there is a word, transparent. therefore, we need transparency, and the agency is saying the same. and everything has to be transfred because we agreed that they were authorized to utilize nuclear for civil purpose. therefore, it can be transparent, if they agree not to utilize it for are military purpose. it has to be transparent. therefore, the solution to all the. conditions is permanent general overall transparency. >> rose: and that's where it has to begin. >> yes. >> rose: is it different dealing-- now, you, you have

been foreign minister since election of elan. >> one year and a half. >> rose: it was after that, that mr. rouhani was elected and they had a new foreign minister. were any conversations with the previous-- >> no. >> rose: none. >> no. therefore, it's a major shift. after the election, i received the ambassador of iran, and the new minister, mr. zarif, called me saying, "well, there has not been a relationship before" and we had an intesting conversation on the phone. it was about syria. i said, "you know we are against chemical weapons because we have suffered with chemical weapons coming from the iraqis, and, therefore, we are against the chemical weapons, and we want to that everybody will abide by the international law." and i said, "mr. minister, i'm

very happy to high pressure from you. we want that everyone will abide by international law, and especially in the nuclear field. then there was a silence. and then he said okay. and, you know, this sort of story which enabled us to know who is in front of us. >> rose: where do you stand and has your opinion changedly on the question of iran being a participant in negotiations about syria? >> well, my answer would be clear, and i have discovered that with mr. islamic aare, i, if. iran could be upo a useful participant provided they accept the mandate and the aim of the

conference. you cannot be part and parcel of a conference if you refuse the aim of the conference. and the aim of the conference is defined by geneva one, and it said the two parts must meet and elaborate a traditional government by mutual consent with full executive power. >> rose: which means the removal of bashar assad. >> which means mr. assad will no longer have its own executive power because they will be given to the new traditional government. and i asked to my counter-part, do you accept that? i would say that the answer was rather complex. but when i speak about it the russians say, well, they accept it. and i must add, to be honest, the iranian minister said, anyway, either we are invited or

we are not invited. we shal make our guest in order that geneva two can be fruitful. we are discussing today if they have to be invited. but if they accept the mandate, it can be useful. >> rose: you know mr. lazarof, who has been at this table a number of times as well. tell me how you measure what the russians want to do. are they simply trying to save their client! or are they simply trying to flex their own importance and a player? or do they have interests they want to protect? >> i would say that interests in terms of having the harbor of-- that's not really matters. as i see it. when i disss it very bluntly with mr. lazarof, who i know

very well, the answer is always, "we want to avoid chaos." and i said but chaos is not tomorrow. it's today. if you want to avoid chaos you must help to us change the situation. what is the situation? you'd have, on the one hand mbashar al-assad. i would say that his future as the leader of his country seems difficult. >> rose: especially when you have 100,000 syrians dead-- >> and the chemical weapons and permanent disaster and slaughter. on the other hand, at the extreme, you have the terrorists, al qaeda and so on. and they are fighting each other, of, but strengthening each other because mr. bashar al-assad said if you want to avoid al qaeda, you have to support me.

and the other ones say, if you want to fight against mr. bashar al-assad, you have to be with us. the reality-- and that's a position of many countries-- is we have to help to support the moderate syrians, what we call the national coalition, because they are the. -- and the solution is neither with the terrorists nor with bashar. and it is the aim to build a canlition between some element of the the regime-- not bashar-- and the moderates in order to build a new sirria. >> rose: some say they fear what is happening is some of these powerful rebel groups have abandoned the opposition's political settlement and are joining with islamistists islame suggesting a more radical front.

>> we cannot support them, no, it's clear. the danger is if the situation keeps on during a long time, it will be more and popular bashar and the-- if we want to find a peaceful settlement for syria, a political situation, we have to have geneva 2 rather quickly in order to build the two elements. otherwise, what are you describing will take place, and syria will split into bits, and you will have enormous consequences on syria, on lebanon as well, on jordan. it is what all of us have to worry. >> rose: putting on your historic hat, was a real opportunity missed that there was not support early for the rebels before so many islamists came from outside? >> sure, sure, the answer is

yes. >> rose: al qaeda affiliated in many cases. >> you're absolutely right. for the first time with the new french government we recognized the national coalitin. when we invite in paris-- it was july last year-- more than 100 countries. at that time, the terrorists were weaker, and bar-- but timed been lost, and we have protested, but time has been lost. >> rose: iranians came in? >> iran, hezbollah, terrorists on the other side. and i think the international community has lost time, yes. and, moreover, the russians and the chinese said veto, veto, veto, to the decision of the international -- >> rose: so the end game now in terms of what the russians want, what the united states wants, what france wants and

other countries-- and i assume some arab countries as well-- is that there will be, because of the absence of the chemical weapons, that there will be some kind of political settlement. >> yeah. >> rose: that bashar al-assad will say, "i cannot prevail over the rebels as i thought i might. i'm weaker than i was six weeks ago, and, therefore, i'm prepared to negotiate. >> exactly. >> rose: is he ever going to be prepared to do that if he knows it means he will lose power. it says something about his own psychology. >> yes, it's about a problem. but i think if most of us-- ]ully all of us-- say the only solution to save syria is the solution in geneva 2, and it has consequences towards mr. bashar. the fact that the international community will go that n that direction is very powerful. >> rose: when you turn to what happened in libya, what's

happening there because france played such an important role. >> i think we were right to intervene in libya. but i think -- >> rose: it is unraveling. >> but i think the mistake is not to have-- it's not only to send bombs, and mr. qaddafi has been killed and elections have taken place. in libya, you are in a place where there are thanks of weapons everywhere. it is not a real state. it was a series of tribes. and, ther therefore, if you str, okay, but aerwards you say that is not my problem. it is difficulties and you have the difficulties you have. today we met in new york the prime minister of libya, and we are following that with great

care. there are growing groups of terrorists. all of us democracies have to deal with that. therefore the mistake has not been not to intervene but the mistake has been, as i said, not to have a follow-up of the situation. >> rose: tell me what is the status on the ground today where france played an important role in mali. >> mali has been a tremendous success, i must say. you must bear in mind that at the beginning of january this year, the terrorist groups were 200 kilometers, and the president of mali called on the phone, and i said to him, "mr. president, i ask your help, military help." otherwise more will be dead and the terrorists will take over mali. and taking over hawley it can be

cynical, ivory coast, and other countries and which he has to make a very strong and quick decision and he took the right one. he said we are in the only ones in a position to send rapid troops. today the security in mali, the different towns in security, and the president has been elected, was a complete, transparent election by 80% o votes. and i've been able to donate-- if you had asked me in january if the success in september would be that, no. what happened and france has been the big one in this situation with africans. but what has happened in mali could have upon happened in other places inafrica.

they are not only in mali, they are in kenya, somalia. >> rose: we just saw them in nairobi. >> terrible attack. so, therefore, we have to work on a-- for democrats, the intercommunity, the weapons, everybody. that is a decisive element. sometimes for syria i'm sieg them and maybe more here than in front. peoplesitis not ours about because it's far away everything is linked with drugs, with human trafficking. you believing where will be made with respect to iran, that the opportunity now is clearly with teem talking, find

transactions that will on the ground. we have to remain very careful. if you look at syrian, a recitation of the chemical weapons they have. that's right. and most people say it surprised them that they did as much as they did. >> yes, but once we have the revolution boated tonight, and they troll -- >> rose: and you believe you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the iranians if they are serious, and perhaps because of the sanctions, and perhaps because mr. rouhani is a different kind of politician, that change may very well, coming in terms of iran wanting to participate in the community of nations. >> that's right opinion i don't know if i would use phrase the--

we have to try honestly. >> rose: ors -- ronald reagan famously said, trust but verify. >> well, that's a good thing. >> rose: finally, there is this, we just heard while you and i were talking that another network is reporting-- cnn to be specific-- that the president had a phone conversation-- the president of the united states-- with the president of iran. that's a remarkable-- we were all looking for them to have a handshake. and now they're opt phone with each other. they're phone pals. >> okay, that's new. >> rose: that's good, though, isn't it? >> sure. >> rose: i want you to say eye don't want you to say, i want you to say what you think which is-- that's good news. >> that's good news, yes. are you better to talk than not to talk.

where you better to talk than not to talk and you have too pay attention to what yousay. >> rose: and say what you believe. thank you, mr. minister. back in a moment. stay with us. laurent fabius is here, the foreign minister for egypt's. government. government's government is now revising the constitution adopted after the ousted president of a cairo court ordered the muslim reconciliation. brotherhood. i am pleased to welcome him to this table. welcome back. it's good to see you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: so, there's so much to talk about in terms of assessment where egypt is and all of that. but first the united nations.

you have been here. obviously, there is now, on a friday afternoon, the news that the president of the united states had a phone conversation with the president of iran. what do you make of that? >> first of all, i've been around the u.n. for a long time. in most general assemblies, there's always a star, or there's one star that's brighter than the others. >> rose: right. and the star this year. >> was iraq and the new president. it's an important country. he's newly electedly. he's considered to be a reformer, at least by his comment and position. >> and by people in iran. >> exactly, exactly. that's a very important point, and by people in iran. it also tells you that the world wants to engage iran. that's one point. he was received with open arms. >> rose: and iran wants to-- >> if you follow the way he acted here. he came with a pleasant, proper,

moderate, warm-- frankly-- message. so iran also wanted to engage the world. is there enough common ground or not? that's going to talk more detail. but i think the iranians met almost everybody at the highest level available here at the general assembly. ultimately, even with the american part, there was a conversation between from rouhani and president obama. i would love to say i was a star, but in actual fact iran was. >> rose: you were there this morning when he was there. give us a sense of his demeanor. did he look like a man who was comfortable and felt like this had been a successful visit for him. >> he looks happy, was

completely unaggressive talked and talked about corporations. >> rose: rather than being strident and angry and accusatory. >> and talked about how to help the world, at least apartment of the world. it wasn't defensive. it's i'm going to do this or not do it. it's we're members of a community and let's work together. it was a very pleasant meeting. >> what is the relationship between egypt and iran? >> not very good. they are the most powell countries in the middle east. >> rose: and you have the largest population, the largest army. exactly. it doesn't. make sense by the don't engage each other. but there have been serious problems opt bilateral basis, and regionally, in terms of the gulf and the arab peace process with a new president.

the natural thing is to hope for the better. put did has to involve concrete steps, but we'll see. we're open minded. we know how important that country is, we have frank-- they have given the right messages by way of imagery. now we'll see what happens on the substance. more iran is the whatiority shippa, egypt is a-- does that have meaning? >> not really for us. we don't have the sectarian debate back home. we're sunni. we had a shiite teritage. we don't have this debate at all

frankly. so our approach-- this is a state-tow-state competition, state-to, "state disagreements. but 25 years ago, if i may -- more than that actually-- we discussed competition with iran the whole region now has become more-- as moved more and more towards the rdefinition. and, frankly, that's a very dangerous thing. look, middle east is. generates prolifically our problems and conflicts. we'd have a tremendous difficulty sesolving them, and these are made by humans.

but pentagon god into it makes it more kill to discuss. those are issues of faith. i did north carolina and compromisize on my client's tech-- it's a faith in absolutely nature. you believe in them or you don't. been the sectarianianism because it defined the nation safe and so we try to hue-- move away from that. i we would like to have good relations with iran, and we have substantive issues which we will vote whe he returns. >> rose: the morsi government strongly support the the levels. >> the morse i government

started off by calling for it. sydney arabia, is that a good idea. >> it's not awe practical idea. in other words, he was going to engage the syrians, and then he decide abrogate relations and call for a jihad in syria. >> rose: what does that mean? >> it means to fight for your beliefs this present government supports the syrian revolution but believes only way out when preserves the sanctity and continuity of the syrian state, rather than dividing it sectarianly, is through a political sution, what people call the geneva 2. >> rose: right, right. >> so we have said we do not

support jihad of egyptians in syria. but we've condemned the syrian government for their civil rights abuses of person seem. we've supported the resolution and poor -- >> rose: how would that political solution play out is there was it go to geneva, or -- >> the first thing has to be-- - that's a great question, charlie. let me start with who was there. this is not a fight between syrians and syrians. thithis is a real political val. there are more parties fighting around syria and within syria, but they're fighting eh other. the u.s. and russia, they weren't fighting but they were compete pentagon. clearly saudi arabia is ared in what happens in syria.

>> rose: and they're on opposite sides. >> and then you have the sectarian good-byes all of that. and then you also them have the syrians agreeing and disagreeing. and i would add to that you have also international terrorists playing a role in that as well. so this is far beyond simply syrians. how did we get there? given the circumstances of the last three weeks, chemical weapons is going to have the priority, dealing with that issue. and i think the russian-american deal is a good one. >> rose: and it can be worked out? >> it can be worked out, and i think it will be worked out because everybody needs it to be worked out. the russians needed to prove that their diplomacy is good. the americans needed to prove why there's a good reason not to bomb. and the syrians need to do it so they're not bombed. that's the first step. we need to bring everybody--

this is going to be a big room-- where you bring the syrian opposition. someone representing the regime. probab not swb youth interview, probably not bashar al-assad, and then the opposition parties and then you probably find egypt there, and you will probably find other region regional players. >> rose: specifically iran far, disn't they be there? >> i think they should. of it's not whether you come or not, it's commit yourself to were a political solution. and a door should be opened. >> rose: i timely have to ask you about this-- do you have any hope that the kerry initiative on palestinian-israeli conflict

can be moved forward. is there an atitute on body sightings. while all these other things were happening, we need to do something about the conflict that is at the core of the middle east. >> great question. when i came into office, it was for a change of government, not a revolution. i was distracted for a couple of days. but i finally got engaged in the peace talks. i was skeptital in my own experience. i was skeptical. i still am a little skeptical. i sensed over the last month or so from the palestinianians and israelis, that they feel the americans are serious.

you know, that's good that both sides feel the americans are serus. that will make both sides understand that it's going to be a difficult negotiation... but these guys are serious. and my discussions with the secretary, i was surprised how determined he was. now, will we succeed? i'm not sre yet. i'm still a bit skeptical. charlie we have known each other a long time. we've been close so many times before. but i have to give secretary credit. he's sent this message of the termination of seriousness that he intends to finish this, the time frame of nine months. that he will make proposals. so upon while my skepticism is still there, we do support it. >> rose: it reminds me of you have to have confidence, you, yu know. what he seems to have done is

created some sense of confidence that it's worth trying. because if you have a sense of this is not worth it because it won't end well, then you will never make any steps. it's like when president kennedy said we will put a man pot moon in 10 years. we have a deadline here. this is what i'm promising you. in his case it's a year. it makes people aware of the time factor. >> and one more point to add. both of them have the sense that america wants this. it's not "we'll help you out and as far as you want to go forward." the sense i got is america wants this-- fo some reason or another-- but they want it. it's a different ballgame-- i've been doing this too many times. i guilty with as far as you want to do. that's a cop-out frankly, and

the money you hear that in the middle east, you know it's a game. it's not what-- and we're going to finish in ninth months. my skepticism is still there, but there is a seriousness of purpose here, and as far as we can we will support it to judge >> rose: thank you for coming. a pleasure to see you. >> rose: this has been a two-part conversation with the foreign minister of egypt. we will present part one this evening and part two next week. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is "bbc world news." funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu, newman's own foundation, giving all profits to charity and pursuing the common good for over 30 years,

united health care, and union bank. >> at union bank, our relationship managers use their expertise in global finance to guide you through the business strategies and opportunities of international commerce. we put our extended global network to work for a wide range of companies, from small businesses to major corporations. what can we do for you? >> and now, "bbc world new" ♪ >> hello, you are watching "gmt." our top stories, a warning from the u.s., syrian refugee numbers are growing faster. mercy mission, british doctors witness the syrian problem firsthand.

>> [indiscernible] theiryon mp's begin investigation into possible intelligence failures leading to attackdevastating terror at the shopping mall. first, the politics of brinkmanship at the u.s. congress porting edge -- sporting a government shutdown. looking at the budget for the rest of the world. >> it matters because the u.s. economy is the engine that drives the global economy and markets are jittery. why? it could result in america not paying its debt. it could mean a higher interest rate worldwide with pension banks and pension funds moving out the door. ♪

>> hello, welcome to "gmt." it is 1:00 in the afternoon in ministersere foreign are receiving stark warnings about the refugee crisis in the region. the u.s. refugee agency says that warnings of the crisis are thatng so's -- so quickly u.n. investigators leaving syria , chemical weapons inspectors are returning to the country. the bbc has returned to the scene of an attack in which people were burned by a napalm -- like substance. in northernhe camp syria on the border with turkey. the gates are closed and the people here cannot travel the final few meters to safety. two british doctors, 2000 miles from home.

because they want to bring relief to the people who have lost their homes in the brutal conflict. doctors are working with a u.k. charity that helped to set up the camp. story.ent holds a tragic her daughter was killed. his wife of -- wife was pregnant with twins at the time. >> traveling around syria has never been more dangerous, foreign aid workers and journalists have been targeted, some of them have been killed. >> last month we filmed the doctors working at this